"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

A Modern Parable: Selfish Attacks Lead to Defeat

Colonel Norman Lamb (U.S. Army, ret.) and I attended the Oklahoma versus Nebraska football game Saturday night in Norman, Oklahoma. We gave up our regular seats at the invitation of our friend, Jakie Sandefer, in order to watch the game in his suite. We were able to view the University of Texas vs. Texas Tech football game on the television while watching the OU game live. The UT vs. Tech game was an instant classic, and we die-hard Sooner fans rooted like crazy for our former offensive coordinater Mike Leach, now the head coach of the Red Raiders. Former OU coach Barry Switzer and his wife Becky joined us in the suite where Switzer mentioned he had been on the phone with his friend Mike Leach encouraging him to "run the ball" on Texas - just like Oklahoma State had done. It was quite entertaining to hear Barry's stories and analysis, particularly since ESPN was honoring the coaches and players involved in the 1971 Game of the Century between Oklahoma and Nebraska. Former Nebraska Coach Tom Osborne and Switzer are great friends, and Tom was very gracious as he spent time in the suite drawing up some football plays on miniature chalk boards which will be lacquered and auctioned off for charity by the Switzers.

Former Oklahoma quarterback Claude Arnold, who led the Sooners to their first national championship under Coach Bud Wilkinson in 1950 was celebrating his 84th birthday last Saturday, and was a ton of fun to visit with in the suite. Former OU running back Joe Washington, now a director of football operations at Oklahoma, joined us as well, as did former Oklahoma assistant coach Charlie North, who became director of football operations at Texas A&M before recently moving back to the Norman area. Watching both games with all the coaches caused me to appreciate how differently they view games compared to the average football fan like me. Their analysis of what was going on was quite revealing.

One of the most intersting conversations for me personally last Saturday night was with former Oklahoma All-American football player and Cleveland Browns All-Pro running back Greg Pruitt. Greg was on the cover of Sports Illustrated (Nov. 22, 1971) the week before the "Game of the Century," joined in the photo by Nebraska linebacker Bob Terrio, both posing beneath the headline: "Irresistible Oklahoma Meets Immovable Nebraska." Nebraska was #1 in the country, Oklahoma was ranked #2. The 1971 Husker "Blackshirts" defense included seven first-team All-Big Eight selections, four players who would earn consensus All-America recognition during their careers and two Outland Trophy winners. This 1971Nebraska defense is still considered by many to be the greatest in college football history. The Sooners' 1971 record-setting wishbone was led by the late All-American QB Jack Mildren who rushed for over 1,000 yards, but was also a very good passer. His weapons were Heisman candidate running back Greg Pruitt, who I've already mentioned averaged a stunning 9.5 yards per carry in 1971, and a speedy split end named Jon Harrison. Future College Football Hall of Famer Tom Brahaney was the anchor at center. The Nebraska offense was led by flanker Johnny Rodgers who would go on to win the Heisman Trophy the next season. ABC-TV would broadcast nationally to the largest audience ever, an estimated 55 million viewers, and they had Chris Schenkel doing the play-by-play.

Wikepedia says that the signature moment of that 1971 game, if not the first 100 years of college football, was Nebraska's Johnny Rodger's 72 yard punt return for a touchdown. I still vividly remember Johnny Rodgers being hit hard when he caught the punt, bouncing off of one of his own players without going down, and then twisting and turning, dashing and dodging, all around the Sooners en route to his historic touchdown that helped Nebraska defeat the Sooners 35 - 31. You can see the actual punt return in the video below. Greg Pruitt believes Rodgers' punt return was the key moment of the game, and without it, Nebraska would not have won.

What Greg Pruitt told me last Saturday night was the untold story of why Johnny Rodgers scored on the punt return. Pruitt said that the punt coverage team, including him, had lanes which they were assigned to cover in order to prevent a big return by Rodgers, whom all Sooners knew to be a dangerous returner. However, Greg told me he made a very personal, selfish decision that led to Johnny's touchdown.

It seems Greg Pruitt and Johnny Rodgers had made acquaintances while both were seniors in high school. They had both been high school All-Americans and had begun a friendly back and forth banter as to who was the better runner and the bigger star. In 1971 both were in the running for the Heisman Trophy, and both were the stars for their respective teams. As Greg ran down to cover the punt, he had only one goal in mind - he was going to hit Johnny Rodgers as hard as he could. He was going to put Johnny in his place - "knocking him on his butt." Everything Greg had learned in practice that week about staying in assigned lanes to prevent a long punt return, all the encouragement OU coaches had given him and the other members of the punt team to be disciplined, and all the thoughts Johnny had of being part of a team to accomplish a greater purpose went out the window due to a selfish decision based upon his desire to "put Johnny in his rightful place."

In short, the outcome of the punt had become very personal to Greg.

So, Greg ran down the field, and if you watch the video tape again, you will see him as the first person to hit Johnny Rogers. He broke down and left his assigned lane, ignoring all coaching instruction, and leveled a hit on Johnny that would have normally knocked him down. However, Johnny fell into a teammate, and instead of falling to the ground, Johnny bounced off his teammate and eventually ran the ball in for a touchdown. Greg told me that hecause he made the punt return personal, he contributed to OU's ultimate defeat.

Greg's anecdote reminds me that in the Southern Baptist Convention, we are all a team, working together toward a united goal. There is really no room for anyone going after someone else personally, whether it be an attack on character or motives. Some Southern Baptists may not like what other Southern Baptists believe on tertiary matters. Others may not like the influence some Southern Baptists have on the movement and direction of the SBC. But, in the end, we all have a role to play, and it is always best for the team to avoid selfish, personal attacks on one another.

Discuss the issues. Debate the doctrines. But in the the end, leave off the personal attacks. If we don't, it will only lead to the ultimate defeat of our cooperative efforts.

100 comments:

Anonymous
said...

My older daughter began her freshman year at Texas Tech University as a pre-pharmacy major this year in August.

Last week on Friday night at midnight, she and her dorm-mate walked over to Jones Stadium in Lubbock to get in line to try to secure seats for Saturday's Tech vs. Texas football game. I text-messaged her on Saturday morning at 5:00 to find out how she was doing--"cold and tired but excited," and one of about 6000 other avid fans in that line!

My daughter waited for 17 HOURS from midnight Friday to 5:00 Saturday afternoon to get into the stadium, then waited 2 1/2 more hours for the game to begin that evening--THEN, DURING THE GAME, HARDLY USED AT ALL THE SEAT SHE'D WAITED SO LONG TO GET!

On Saturday, I thought, "Wouldn't it be cool if the church offered something perceived by the general public as so exciting that folks would wait for 17 hours, if they had to, to get inside our buildings on Sundays to experience it?" BUT WE DO--His name is JESUS!

If we'd stop offering the world ourselves and start offering the world HIM, I'm convinced people would line up to see and hear it for themselves. Jesus Himself said, "And I, if I be lifted up . . . , will draw all [people] to Me" (John 12:32)--He didn't say, "And I, if MY CHURCH BE LIFTED UP . . . , will draw all [people] to Me."

Folks don't reject the Lord Jesus so much as they reject our poor representations of Him (how could they?--Jesus frequently was met at the city limits by crowds so large it was difficult for Him to get into town; when I come home from an out-of-town trip, my own sweet family won't unlock the door to let me in our house! I like Jesus' popularity with people--I should just show them Him.)

Anyway, 'way to go TTU Red Raiders--guns up!!

David

(Not Just a Texan, But a PANHANDLE TEXAN; 3 other states' capital cities--including Denver--are 100-250 miles closer to the Texas Panhandle than Austin and its UT Longhorns are!)

. . . And, after all that AND the EXCITING VICTORY OVER THE OVER-RATED LONGHORNS, my daughter attended church yesterday morning (Redeemer Church in Lubbock; Dusty Thompson, pastor; see its website--YOUNG STAFF! 'Way to go, Dusty--Bibles up!! www.redeemerlubbock.org)

I do not watch football. Actually do not watch any sports or TV. Mostly into reading.

But I got interested in football, because of Pastor Wade's articles. I still have not watched any game on TV. But I am content to read Pastor Wade's posts on football, for now. To be honest, it is much harder to comprehend football than reading of Martin Luther and his writings.

"Greg's anecdote reminds me that in the Southern Baptist Convention, we are all a team, working together toward a united goal. There is really no room for anyone going after someone else personally, whether it be an attack on character or motives. Some Southern Baptists may not like what other Southern Baptists believe on tertiary matters. Others may not like the influence some Southern Baptists have on the movement and direction of the SBC. But, in the end, we all have a role to play, and it is always best for the team to avoid selfish, personal attacks on one another.

Discuss the issues. Debate the doctrines. But in the the end, leave off the personal attacks. If we don't, it will only lead to the ultimate defeat of our cooperative efforts."

These last two paragraphs speaks very clearly to me.

I always think of myself as naive and slow witted. In lot of ways I am. But one thing I found is, when I keep my eyes on Our Lord Jesus Christ and remember the scriptures, I feel I am wise. I seem to be a changed person. And when I take my eyes and mind off Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God, I seem to become dumb. Such is life and my experience.

I have been quilty of personal attacks in my blogging with others and I am in the process of asking forgiveness of the ones I have personally attacked (I still have more forgiveness to ask of others that I have not asked for yet). May I discuss issues with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but may I never be quilty of personally attacking them.

I am a 51 year old, who has been a Baptist since I was saved at the age of 16. I have watched our denomination become more and more fragmented, because it has become personal for lots of Baptists, including my self.

May we put our eyes on Jesus and learn to cooperate and work together.

Honestly, I know: the Longhorns are an awesome football team. That's why I couldn't bear to watch the final quarter of the game myself--it looked to me like Tech was going to lose, so I went to bed early! My reference to them being over-rated is region-related more than skill-related. ;~)

I'd be OK with UT, Tech, or the Sooners in the BCS championship game. And Jesus lifted up by our churches.

When I was a senior at Ada High School, I asked my dad if he'd go with me to an OU football game. His response was, "if you can get tickets, let's go!"

So, being the dumb hick kid from Southeast Oklahoma and not knowing any better, I sent my ticket request off to the ticket office.

Time passed. No response at all. So, I called them.

They told me that there had been such a huge request pool for tickets, that the normally "game day ticket sales for the south endzone" would be diverted to pre-sold tickets.

I got two. South end-zone, 10th row, looking right down the east sideline.

This was to be my dad's first, and only, OU game in-person. So, we show up on the appointed day, took our seats and enjoyed a fabulous game. We lost, but a fabulous game in any case. 1971. OU-Nebraska.

Oh, and Johnny Rodgers run should've been called back. It *was* a clip.

When my dad got Alzheimer's 3 years before he passed away, that was one of the things which he could remember that wasn't from his childhood, teenage, or early adult years.

I just read some comments by Mr. CB Scott, Mr. Peter Lumpkins, two people named Steve and Rod, and a couple of others on a sister blog. I do not know these men, but if God would give them the spirit of Tom Parker, good old revival just make make it to the SBC. I was shocked. Their attacks on fellow Christians are incredible to me. Where is the spirit of Christ?

I was just teasing about the 'Horns and your Raiders... You are really good this year and I'd much rather have you in the Big 12 Championship game than Texas. Its not fun playing a team 2 times in one year and is just a good place for an upset and then you sit home or go to San Diego for a bowl game...

Good luck to you and your Raiders--honestly, I'd rather see you win than OU or OSU since at least you are TEXANS...

Choices for churches are few in our town. We want to no part in two kinds of churches: those more focused on "growth" (read sheep stealing) and those more focused on "issues" (read personal kingdom building).

We found a church focused on reaching the lost for Jesus Christ. It is a church where politics are not preached. It is a church focused on preaching the scripture rather than being popular with the unsaved.

Funny thing is, it seems to be reaching more of the lost, growing in numbers and popularity, and folks lives are being changed for the more moral.

Go figure. What a surprise: the gospel is still effective without all the programs and politics.

I'll let Dave Miller give you examples, if he can, from your blog to answer your question, because I cannot. However, I would like for Dave Miller to answer whether or not he believes the following comments directed at you on another blog, written by one of the BI people Dave named above, are personal attacks:

“Wade begins to "split hairs" with meaningless rhetoric.”

“Wade draws in his groupies to defend him.”

“Wade advances his personal agenda.”

“Wade brings forth in his vendetta against (seemingly) all things SBC for not anointing him king.”

“You and I have chosen to counter Wade and expose his game.”

“If you are going to fight monsters (like Wade) you must not become one.”

Thanks for the illustration. Please accept my apology for not communicating clearly.

I was attempting in the comment above to say precisely the opposite of the way you seemed to have taken it.

I was saying I refuse to call you a legalist. We all sometimes tend toward legalism, including me, because of its inherent structure of comfort and security. But there is a difference betweeen promoting legalism and being a "legalist."

Just some observations:1. 'tertiary' issues are not tertiary to some people, to whom they may be 'secondary' or even 'primary'. The more pride-filled the 'believer' , the more 'primary' all of his personal beliefs seem to him.2. Biblical verses quoted are challenged as 'out of context' if a person is confronted by a verse in response to his own verse. 3. Temperament of certain bloggers seems consistent no matter what the issue: negativity towards Wade is so intense as to warrant concern that these bloggers might be in the pay of the 'B.I.' leadership. This is mentioned because these particular bloggers serve to 'stir the pot' or to provoke ad nauseum, without adding valuable points to the discussion. 4. There is thinly veiled racism and anti-semitism with certain bloggers. This is hard for any true Christian to read. 5. There are some really decent, thoughtful and humble Christians who stimulate the conversational flow and also, occasionally, manage to stay on topic.

A few thoughts, nothing more. Do you recognize yourself in any of these observations? Not intended. These are generically written.

Of course. I have called Dr. Patterson on more than one occasion to buy him lunch. I have sought, diligently, to speak kind words of him as a person, to the point that some have made fun of me for saying nice things about him, while then attempting to show the fallacy and inconsistencies of his positions and actions.

depriving someone of a job, when they have already been assured of it. In this case, the victim had a seriously-ill family member. At one point, the victim was forced to sell her own blood to help pay expenses.

This is a 'personal attack' which was dressed up as 'Christian leadership' by the perpetrators. I suppose even Satan can call himself a Christian, wave the Bible around, and someone out there will follow him blindly. ?

Pastor Wade, I find it so hard to believe you would offer to buy lunch to PP. He is so high on the totem pole, I would never even think of buying him a lunch. I admit, I am very naive. If you had to buy him a lunch, it will probably cost you an arm and a leg.

I am not questioning your intentions, but your forthrightness (I am surprised by it). I hope PP will one day accept your offer to take him out for lunch. It can be an inexpensive one. :-)

It is really hard to feel sorry for poor Dr. Patterson after what happened to Dr. Klouda and the missionaries. Would it not be 'kinder' to call a Christian (assuming that a person WAS a Christian) to account for harming others? Then, asking them to make resitution and reconciliation with the victims? This could be done privately, for the sake of the person's soul. Once they had reconciled with those they harmed, then they could ask for forgiveness from God.

I find it so hard to believe that PP would let Klouda take the "fall", just based on Scripture (or his understanding of it). He is a strategist and a planner. He must have weighed the costs in making an example of Klouda. In his mind, the pluses outweighed the negatives.

What 'pluses' could ever be bought at the cost of ANOTHER person's agony? If Patterson had sacrificed of his own substance to help the church, then that would have been a Christian service on his part. But for him to engineer the treatment of others' pain, for the sake of his ideas, this was too high a price to pay.

Patterson needs help. I wonder is he thinks about those people? I wonder if his conscience is at peace? I think he needs Wade's help.

If you will look at my comment again, I did not say you had made personal attacks. My remarks were actually addressed to commenters on these sites.

I have received some very personal and insulting comments (my perception of course) on this site when I disagreed with your viewpoint. Those comments did not come from you, but from those who agreed with your viewpoint. I know that you do not (usually) censor comments and are not responsible for what others say.

My point was a simple observation that "personal attacks" are in the eye of the beholder.

When you criticize the SBC leadership, the "other side" sees that as personal and demeaning. They engage in criticism of you that you (and others) seem to find personal and demeaning.

I was responding to Jerry's comment above and to thousands I have seen on various blogs that always seem to place the guilt for personal attacks on "them."

Scripture Reading: John 1:1-14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us … full of grace and truth. John 1:14Jesus was among us as one who was full of truth and grace. His truth was gracious, and his grace was truthful. Unfortunately, many of us have a tendency to play grace and truth off against each other. There are times when we are “terribly truthful.” We point out the shortcomings of another person with the all the force of a sledgehammer. A parent gave an awful dressing-down to a teacher and said, as she walked away, “I feel much better.” Maybe—but the teacher was in tears.There are times when we are “sloppily gracious.” We show thinly veiled kindness and grace to others when we’d rather cut them to pieces. Or we demonstrate a “cheap grace” toward ourselves, ignoring our own mistakes and refusing to understand that grace not only forgives but also transforms. The wisdom that ought to keep both grace and truth in balance often escapes us.In Matthew 16, when Peter was confronted with Jesus’ truth, he was also reminded of his own unworthiness and need for grace. And when Jesus confronted Peter with his grace, Peter recognized the truth of Christ’s own divinity.When we know Jesus is Lord—our Lord—our lives can express both his grace and truth.Are we truthfully gracious and graciously truthful in our own lives and in our contacts with others?Prayer:Lord, call to my mind the twin virtues of truth and grace, and help me to be full of both. May I express truth graciously and be gracious in truth, for your sake. Amen.

There are two groups (many more, but two I am focusing on) in blogdom.

First, there are the "wide-tent" blogs. They focus on the current conservative leadership of the SBC as the source of our problems.

Wade's site has been the flagship of this movement. In post after post he has questioned the actions and direction of the SBC's key leaders. Wade has tried to focus the attacks on the viewpoints and actions of the leaders, not on personality or character, but his criticism has been relentless.

There is a second group. They see the SBC leadership as good people under attack by people who want to undermine the SBC's conservative resurgence and return us to a leftward drift.

They view Wade's barrage of criticism against the SBC's leadership as personal, offensive, even ungodly.

For these folks, Wade and this site are ground zero. He is engaging in a crusade of personal destruction to undo the conservative resurgence and to move the SBC toward liberalism.

One group sees the SBC leadership as the problem, the other group sees "Enid" (their reference to all things Burleson) as the bad guy.

You wrote, "PP does not need help. All this has been calculated. To him, we are the people of the fringe. To him, he is ok."

'ALL THIS HAS BEEN CALCULATED.'

Is this not an even greater reason to try to get this man some help? Wade, in Christian charity, is trying to reach out to another human being. The point is, as a Christian, do we have any other choice? While there is still time? I think that Wade demonstrates that he is, first and last, a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And. in this case, he sees his responsibility towards another human being in the Church. It is as simple as that and as profound as that. Salvation for Protestants is instantaneous, I have been told, but there lingers afterwards salvation's effects of reconciliation and HEALING. Wade's reaching out to Patterson is all about the healing for both men and ultimately for the Church. I think Wade has been led by the Holy Spirit to reach out to Patterson. One senses powerful Forces at work here. L's

To me, it looks like SBC is supposed to be a co-operative membership. If PP and others, make the boundaries very narrow of their own making, they are excluding or pushing lot of the members out of SBC. Where as Pastor Wade is trying to be inclusive and expansive to the true understanding of the cooperative movement, that was SBC a while ago.

I understand, some label him a liberal because of that. But Pastor Wade consistently argues that conservatives are on both sides of this issue.

So my thinking is, Pastor Wade will chip away slowly, and the Holy Spirit will convict and change peoples hearts.

Wade is an instrument of His Peace. If Wade has been able to write this post, then he has already seen past where many cannot see: that one of the greatest 'weapons' in all of Christianity is to love the unlovable: to 'love thine enemy'. This is completely against our nature, but not against His Nature. Satan has no weapon to defeat this kind of love. This kind of love brings great healing.You have good reason to hope.

thy peace said:"To me, it looks like the SBC is supposed to be a co-operative membership. If PP and others make the boundaries very narrow of their own making, they are excluding or pushing a lot of the members out of the SBC."

I couldn't agree more with what thy peace has said. So the CR crowd is worried that the SBC may become more liberal? Liberal is a relative term. Wade and his allies are extremely conservative compared to most Christian denominations.

All Christians are to fulfill the Great Commission, and I find it puzzling how the CR crowd believes it can reach the lost with its narrow interpretation of Scripture.

Guess what . . . it's not working!

I have appreciated all of the comments here, especially the following one by Anonymous:

Wade, Ask my brother at church this Sunday, but the game was so traumatic for my family, that it put my mom into labor and I was born just 4 days later! I always read, rarely respond, but your point (as always) is right on. Thank you for your ministry in these regards. However, did Mr. Pruitt say anything about the 2 clipping penalties that should have been called on that punt return?

Dave Miller's analysis seems right on target to me. Sometimes blog comment streams remind me of the vote in congress on the impeachment of President Clinton. It was rather amazing that our politicians opinion of whether Clinton committed "high crimes or misdemeanors" as specified by the Constitution matched almost precisely their part affiliation. If it been a Republican who did the exact same thing, I can guarantee you that all those Democrats who were anxious to forgive would have suddenly become legalists (and the Republicans would have become forgiving).

The point is adherence to a group that is based only on one's loyalty to the group and one's personal investment in the group can easily cause us to lose objectivity and rationality in an attempt to bend any argument to the favor our our group.

My comments here have tended to be in agreement with Wade's position, because I view fragmentation and narrowing the parameters for cooperation as more dangerous to the SBC than "creeping liberalism". I have seen real concrete evidence of the former, but not the latter and I have seen the sadly downward trend in Baptisms under the CR leaders. However, I have to concede that Dave is correct that those on the other "side" are responding to cultural relativism which is a real problem and they believe questioning the absolutes put forth by leadership is the first step to relativism in the SBC.

In any case, I think this post is much needed in the Baptist blogosphere (surprise, surprise, I agree with Wade). Taking greater care to stay focused on the issues and not the person would elevate our discussions and help us overcome our "groupthink" tendencies. Perhaps we should also consider gently pointing out when we believe someone has crossed the line and engaged in a personal attack. I know that sometimes this will be a matter of opinion. For example, it is difficult to discuss the Klouda case without comments about Dr. Patterson that seem like personal attacks. However, I think if we all took extra care to keep the remarks objective and refuse to question motives or attribute evil intentions to those with whom we disagree, we could come close to consensus on posts that cross the line.

I really wonder if Southern Baptists can learn to love each other and live with the many differences that exist among us? I wonder if we can have an open debate about important items without attacking a differing view by a Christian brother or sister. I wonder if before I or any one else sends a comment if it will be edited for personal attacks. I believe it is important to dialogue with each other even when we disagree, but we must be willing to listen to each other.

I may not agree with someone, but I must be willing to listen.

I want to say clearly to any one that I post to--you are not my enemy and I am not your enemy. Satan is the enemy we must all be aware of who loves to divide Christians.

STEPHEN PRUITT wrote, "For example, it is difficult to discuss the Klouda case without comments about Dr. Patterson that seem like personal attacks. However, I think if we all took extra care to keep the remarks objective and refuse to question motives or attribute evil intentions to those with whom we disagree, we could come close to consensus on posts that cross the line."

PROBLEM: 'keep the remarks objective' about what happened to Dr. Klouda?

When you write out exactly what was done to her objectively, it sounds ten times worse than anything that has been said on this blog. There is no way that the Dr. Klouda case can be white-washed so that responsibility does not fall on the head of the leadership. THEY OWN WHAT THEY DID TO DR. KLOUDA. They can excuse it, or brag about it, or try to diminish what took place: it won't work. It is one of the worst cases of public abuse of a Christian woman in a church setting on record. Objectivity will not remove the stigma of responsibility. The only way to get around it is to 'deny reality' and call it all something that it wasn't: 'yes, we threw her under the bus, but we did it for Jesus."Don't blame Him for this. Don't blame the victim. And for the love of Almighty God, do NOT blame Christians who are outraged and horrified by what happened:

I have been quilty of personal attacks in my blogging with others and I am in the process of asking forgiveness of the ones I have personally attacked (I still have more forgiveness to ask of others that I have not asked for yet)."

Although you would not consider what you have written about these people a personal attack, others might. The questionable word is “attack.” Maybe “critique” or “analysis” would be better. Lydia and Dave are right; an “attack” is really in the eye of the beholder. But we cannot debate whether or not they were “personal.” As soon as you mention an individual’s name it becomes personal.

Wade, you would do well to follow your own advice: “Discuss the issues. Debate the doctrines. But in the end, leave off the personal attacks. If we don't, it will only lead to the ultimate defeat of our cooperative efforts.”

Good morning everyone,It is after six and I have already voted: we live in a small suburb and the lines at my polling place wrapped around a church and down the street. WHAT A TURN-OUT! And in the pouring rain. Makes you proud to be an American. :)

Just to warn everyone: be prepared for a wait in line, if you have not voted yet. But don't let that stop you. VOTE! L's

Taking greater care to stay focused on the issues and not the person would elevate our discussions and help us overcome our "groupthink" tendencies. Perhaps we should also consider gently pointing out when we believe someone has crossed the line and engaged in a personal attack. I know that sometimes this will be a matter of opinion. For example, it is difficult to discuss the Klouda case without comments about Dr. Patterson that seem like personal attacks. However, I think if we all took extra care to keep the remarks objective and refuse to question motives or attribute evil intentions to those with whom we disagree, we could come close to consensus on posts that cross the line.

Mon Nov 03, 10:49:00 PM 2008

This is a nice sentiment but only protects those who do evil. Sometimes the ISSUE IS a person's behavior and actions. Like Patterson with Klouda. It is not something that happened to her. It was DONE to her. By a PERSON...a leader with power... who professes Christ.

Patterson should be fired over it.

Another tip: If a person is a public person or makes remarks meant for public consumption, then analysis, disagreement, etc., is fair game. It is down right silly to say we cannot judge motives or the heart when public behavior, actions and words come from the heart. When it is consistent it points to a serious problem.

If we really believed this nonsense, we could never confront someone over sin. After all, that is ONLY their outward behavior. We don't really know their 'heart'. All of this is a bit silly. We CAN judge a book by it's cover. But we had better be careful in doing so.

Have gone on the record advocating a permanent subordination of women to men, including no woman ever having "authority" over a man, no woman ever "teaching" a man, and no woman being in leadership.

I have gone on the record opposing their statements and their arguments, but not one time have I ever said anything critical of any of the persons you mention. Have I been critical of their views and their demands that all Southern Baptists conform to them? Of course.

But I have sought to do so while respecting the people you mention because I do respect them.

I think the crux of the argument is found in the argument above. (Tue Nov 04, 10:13:00 AM 2008)

These individuals hold to secondary convictions that you disagree with. But how are they "forcing" these beliefs on anyone.

Mohler? I don't even know what he's done to garner your angst, except speak out on the Garner motion.

Tarter? She wrote a paper that almost no one had read till you brought it up.

White? Gave a chapel sermon where he outlined his personal view, which you didn't like.

No one is makeing a motion on the convention floor that ladies should take off their shoes, get pregnant, and stay in the kitchen (Ben Cole told a lady to do that once, but aside from that....)

You might try to use the Klouda case against the Pattersons. And I'll admit that I didn't like that situation much myself. But let's be honest, the SBC is much larger than any one seminary. The Patersons are leading according to their convictions, which we knew about before they got there.

Should people not lead according to their convictions even if others don't like them?

No one is forcing anything on the SBC. They are arguing their convictions on secondary matters, and allowing people's conscience to guide them from there. They should be allowed to do so without derision.

I don't always agree with what you have to say about some secondary matters, but you have a right to say it. So do they.

While "personal attack" may possess a dimension that is in the "beholder's eye," that which constitutes "personal attack" does have a more objective criteria to it.

Accepted rules of engagement--pick up a standard textbook on logic and there will undoubtedly be a section dedicated to this--dubs as what we normally charge as personal attacks as Argumentum ad Hominem, with two specific varieties being abusive and circumstantial. Both are viewed as irrelevant to the point under discussion and, therefore, meaningless as evidence.

The first--abusive--focuses on the personal identity of the one making a point as in:

Peter is a hothead; therefore, what Peter says cannot be taken seriously. Or,

Peter is condescending; therefore, his words are skewed. Or,

Wade is humble; therefore, Wade's words must be heard. Or,

Wade is filled with pride; therefore, Wade's assessment is wrong.

So, Ad Hominem abusive focuses on the personal characteristics of the person him/herself.

Ad Hominem cirmcumstial is slightly different and sometimes easily confused with the former. Here the focus is primarily upon the circumstances surrounding the one making a point.

This is clearly detected, for example, in a teen's question to a parent: "But dad: you've told me over and over again that you started drinking when you were 16. Why is it that I can't drink now that I am 16?"

That his dad drank at 16 counts neither for nor against the rightness or wrongness of whether or not it is a moral practice for a 16 year old to imbibe.

Or perhaps, more applicable, a leader gives a teaching on the wrongness of divorce and is confronted with "But Mr. Smith, is it not true that you yourself have been divorced?" The assumption is, Mr. Smith's circumstances--that is, his divorce-- counts against sound teaching on divorce. It does not.

As for a short response to your observation to "stir things up, Dave, you write of the "second group," presumably the group in which you would align me (though you did not state such, of course):

"They see the SBC leadership as good people under attack by people who want to undermine the SBC's conservative resurgence and return us to a leftward drift."

If I am correct to presume you placed me in this grouping, Dave, I must correct it at a few junctures.

First, while the first part of the assertion is right, the second part is wrong, as far as it applies to me. While I do think some good people have had their views skewed and consequently their names tarnished, I by no means have either stated or indicated that it is by "people who want to undermine the SBC's conservative resurgence and return us to a leftward drift."

I don't know why Wade writes what he writes but I have never stated anywhere that I recall that he is attempting to "undermine the conservative resurgence" and return us to a leftward drift." If you can point me to something offering evidence for this, I'd be happy to address it.

As for the second descriptor, I personally do not plead innocent. It is "personal" because the names are public; it is offensive because many times the most provocative images are employed--"act like a cult," "heretical teaching,"moral legalist" who embodies "what's wrong in the SBC"; and it is godless when one is accused of "heretical teaching" barring the definitive evidence to demonstrate such.

Again, you write of the "second group's" view of Wade: "He is engaging in a crusade of personal destruction to undo the conservative resurgence and to move the SBC toward liberalism."

As above the first part is fairly accurate but the second does not square with my own engagement here, Dave.

Could you produce some evidence here where I've charged Wade with undoing the CR or leading us to Liberalism? If you cannot, then perhaps you need to tone down the "observations" in order to "stir things up." Even observations require evidence if one is going to serve potatoes on other people's plates.

My focus has been and will remain to challenge the evidence Wade offers for what, in my view at least, become outlandish charges against many prominent SB leaders.

Nor will I enter a defense just because one is a SBC leader. If it is good, solid evidence, I'm afraid the old boy will simply have to eat his spinach. Unless, of course, his accusers plead for more than the evidence allows.

I think the primary complaint that Wade is addressing is using the trappings of power to promote a personal agenda. Wade speaks with zero de jure power from an SBC perspective. He even resigned the one SBC-level position he had due to his own principles: he felt he had become the substance of the discussion when he felt the issues were more important than his personal power.

Mohler and Patterson--echoing Reccord's abuse of the NAMB portfolio--appear to speak as if their personal and political power is the source of authority for the positions they hold. As such, whether intended or not, their personal pronouncements come across as ex cathedra. If the Seminaries were collegial in organization, that almost would be welcome.

That each of the Seminaries has been re-constructed to a "practical" unity voice with no tolerance for dissension makes those ex-cathedra-style proncouncements EXTREMELY un-Baptist theologically and doctrinally. In fact, you would have to look to certain Baptist pastors--think W. A. Criswell--to find that kind of posturing among Southern Baptists. The only other leader of similar stature in MY lifetime was Baker James Cauthen, and my opinion is that he did not in ANY WAY use his position for personal power.

But maybe that is the central fault of Baptist intellectual life: because there is no central voice, it's perfectly okay to use the trappings of power to magnify your own voice. And perhaps Wade is exactly guilty of that. But to the extent Wade is held accountable for using his position--now resigned I might repeat--for personal self-aggrandizement, then other leaders must also be held to the same standard and are even more accountable to that standard if they have used it as a weapon against Wade.

This is not a matter of everyone has a right to say what they want to say. Even Mohler's "priesthood of the believers" addresses THAT fallacy. We have a responsibility to speak what is consistent with Scripture and provable by searching the WHOLE text of Scripture. And nothing else. At least such are the restraints for a faithful minister of the Gopspel. Hence Paul's compliment of the Bereans when they questioned his teachings to them.

Could you produce some evidence here where I've charged Wade with undoing the CR or leading us to Liberalism?

I would like to respond. How about your March 30, 2008 post entitled "Liberalism Remembered: Recalling Classic Liberalism's Most Famous Sermon" where you quote the "famous" liberal Harry Emerson Fosdick and then state:

As we are recalling Fosdick, the poster-boy of Modern Liberalism, and the sharpest blade by far on his deadly belt--the charge of an intolerable Church--know that same knife is drawn once again against the many in the Southern Baptist Convention who possess the audacity to actually expect that the distinctives we know as Southern Baptists should be embraced by those who wish to serve our Convention.

Then, in the comment section you write:

As for the question "What is exactly not evangelical about Mr. Burleson's theology?" it misses the entire point of the post: the constant charge of intolerance was the bread and butter accusation against the Old Fundamentalists by Liberals like Fosdick.

My dear Peter, for you to profess in this comment stream that you have never charged Wade with undoing the CR or leading the SBC to liberalism is either an outright lie, or worse, extraordinary blindess. Your slyhanded technique of attempting to associate the biblically conservative, self-proclaimed inerrantist Wade Burleson as "liberal" does not go unnoticed by Southern Baptist age 70 and above - like me - who endured the same unbelievably ungodly tactics in the 1980's.

Wade, in reference to the short list of people (the Pattersons, Courtney Tarter, Thomas White, etc) you say:

“I have gone on the record opposing their statements and their arguments, but not one time have I ever said anything critical of any of the persons you mention. Have I been critical of their views and their demands that all Southern Baptists conform to them? Of course.”

I do not personally know any of these people, and I would be very curious to know their feelings on this. I have a strong suspicion that if asked, they would admit that your writings about them on this blog have felt, to them, like personal attacks. Have you ever asked any of them this question?

Pastor Wade, keep on the good work. To me, the process is very important. The end results, I will leave it up to God. You have shown a remarkable ability to stay focussed on issues and not on people's characters. You have tried to stay above board, even while questioning their statements and arguments.

We clearly see the results of the people whom you are questioning, of their statements, beliefs and actions. If only these people whom you engage, kept their thoughts and beliefs to themselves, then all this is unnecessary. But when they force their views on others and push others out, then what you are doing is the greatest service being performed.

Some people have mentioned, your blog attracts lot of dissenters. To me the most attractive thing about your blog is you have consistently mentioned taking the higher road, while still questioning.

Pastor Wade, you are continually being refined. Stay the course and God bless you Sir.

I do not personally know any of these people, and I would be very curious to know their feelings on this. I have a strong suspicion that if asked, they would admit that your writings about them on this blog have felt, to them, like personal attacks. Have you ever asked any of them this question?

If you really do respect them, you have an odd way of showing it.

Yes, you are correct: anyone who suffers even the slightest investigation of their behavior can characterize it as a personal attack. But when you put your work out there WITH YOUR NAME ON IT, then you suffer the indignity of inspection and investigation v. commonly accepted standards of ethics and behavior or against the Bible itself.

"I do not personally know any of these people, and I would be very curious to know their feelings on this. I have a strong suspicion that if asked, they would admit that your writings about them on this blog have felt, to them, like personal attacks. Have you ever asked any of them this question? "

If they have strong 'feeeeeeelings' about having their public words analyzed then they should not go public and should step down from their positions of power and influence. If they consider disagreement or analysis of the doctrinal positions they put forth, then they are in the wrong position. Their behavior and actions are also fair game as they are paid (nicely, I might add) with our tithe dollars.

Miss Tarter went on ABC and gave her doctrinal opinions yet you say we are to ask about her 'feeeeeelings' before we analyze the bizarre doctrine she put forth? She also put her doctrinal positions on the internet!

From my reading of this blog, I have seen Wade write that he has tried to meet with Patterson (was rebuffed) and has tried to call many he has written about. He once even took a post about Herschal York down after talking with him which I did not think was necessary to the situation. But, it seems he goes to great lengths to understand and interact with folks.

When did the SBC decide we could not question our leaders and if we did it was a personal attack or their feeeeeelings might get hurt? In the past 30 years and since the advent of the internet where it is harder to hide.

Thanks for answering the second question to Dave, et al. I actually had asked of you first for the "shocking" comments I allegedly wrote which were judged "incredible" to you. Perhaps you would oblige me.

As for the example you do give on my second comment, Jerry, it would have been better if you gave something that applied to what I asked.

In my comment to Dave, et al, I made two denials:

"I by no means have either stated or indicated that it is by "people who want to undermine the SBC's conservative resurgence and return us to a leftward drift."

And:

"I have never stated anywhere that I recall that [Wade} is attempting to "undermine the conservative resurgence" and return us to a leftward drift."

Yet, neither of these denials is remotely similar to the post you reference nor to the two quotes you cite. In both cases, the obvious reference was to Baptist distinctives in general, decidedly not either the CR or Wade's leading us "back to Liberalism."

Indeed, the second quote you reference was actually in response to a question by Aaron Weaver about a term I used in an earlier comment he questioned. Here is the comment in its fuller context:

"I have always been able to embrace my Baptist distinctives while working well together with other evangelicals on what cooperative projects we could without losing my Baptist identity.

Nor would I in ten thousand years expect them to sacrifice their own distinctives to satisfy me. Where we could not work together, we simply said so and moved on.

The continued call from some Baptists--among whom Enid leads the way hardly any would dispute--to some sort of quasi-evangelicalism with barely a Baptist-like identity, will ultimately pay its high toll, I think. From my view, they are attempting to remold us into an interdenominational-like fellowship. Southern Baptists may soon have enough.

The discussion was about Baptist distinctives and their continued dilution. What's interesting is, if I accused Wade of anything in this quote you cite, it is not destroying the CR and certainly not "Liberalism"; rather, evangelicalism--albeit quasi-evangelicalism--but evangelicalism nonetheless.

Thus, the illustrations you presented are irrelevant to what I'd asserted, Jerry. If you have something else specific in mind, please let me know.

Now as for your conclusion that my assertion is either an "outright lie, or worse, extraordinary blindess" and that my alleged "slyhanded technique" and "ungodly tactic" (similar to the 80s) of associating the biblically conservative, Wade Burleson as "liberal" not going unnoticed by Southern Baptists age 70--presumably those like yourself.

Aside from the odd value comparison that blindness is worse than outright lying, unhappily for you, nothing follows from the evidence you've offered, Jerry. I may very well be everything you say I am--either a liar or extraordinarily blind and employing "slyhanded techniques" and "ungodly tactics"--but I am not such based upon what you cite as germane to your charges.

If you or others are going to play those cards, then you need to deal a fair hand with the evidences.

When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg, did he consult the feelings of the Pope? But his was not a personal attack, but he was questioning the practices of the Catholic Church and the Pope.

I am sure the Pope then took it personally.

If you compare the language Martin Luther used and what Pastor Wade does here, Wade comes out as a Saint.

We will work with each other, we will work side by side We will work with each other, we will work side by side

AND WE WILL GUARD EACH ONE'S DIGNITY AND SAVE EACH ONE'S PRIDE

And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love They will know we are Christians by our love

We will walk with each other, we will walk hand in hand We will walk with each other, we will walk hand in hand And together we'll spread the news that God is in our land And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love They will know we are Christians by our love

Love is patient, love is kind Never boasts, not full of pride Always hopes, always trusts The evidence of Christ in us

thy peace said:"When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg, did he consult the feelings of the Pope? But his was not a personal attack, but he was questioning the practices of the Catholic Church and the Pope. I am sure the Pope then took it personally."

Once again, thy peace has NAILED IT ON THE HEAD! This is an excellent comment.

Those who oppose the "uberconservatives" in the SBC, meaning "over the top" legalists, will be condemned.

As a woman, I'm grateful to Wade for giving me a forum to express my theological beliefs.

I have had extensive engagements with bloggers who have said precisely what I am said above - that Wade's intent was to undo the conservative resurgence.

I do not recall that any of those would have involved you. I just don't remember, and I did not say that above.

I could name names of those who have said this, and if you wish, I would be glad to email you. Three names come to mind, prominent "BI" bloggers who have stated forthrightly that the "reform" movement which Wade spearheaded was designed to undo the CR. But, I think you probably know who I am talking about. We have walked many of the same blog roads.

Thanks for the clarity. I, too, would clarify that I raised the question pertaining to the "second group," about which I said concerning your observation "presumably the group in which you would align me (though you did not state such, of course)" (emphasis mine).

And you are correct: some of those with whom I am aligned pertaining to concerns over the dilution of Baptist distinctives, based on their understanding of his posts, have raised the issue, whether Wade fully supports the CR.

To my recall I have never raised the question as I wrote to Jerry as well. In fact, I have never thought deeply about that; other fish demanded my line.

Ah, but only if Jerry could agree with you! ;^) Seems to him, I am either an emboldened liar or extraordinarily blinded.

How did you get way off over here? I guess you can handle yourself. You always do. I will say one thing to this fellow "thy peace" and then go. That is unless, of course, things really heat up over here. Then I will be back. Well enough of that. On to my purpose:

thy peace,

I have read several things you have said lately such as:

" thy peace said...When Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses on the church door in Wittenberg, did he consult the feelings of the Pope? But his was not a personal attack, but he was questioning the practices of the Catholic Church and the Pope.

I am sure the Pope then took it personally.

If you compare the language Martin Luther used and what Pastor Wade does here, Wade comes out as a Saint."

CB, are you the same guy who wrote on another blog, as quoted at BaptistLife, that the reasons people would vote vote for Obama are:

1. They are lost.2. They are backslidden.3. They have a low view of Scripture and are unsound theologically.

Did you also write on a different blog:

Obama is the most dangerous man in America. He is a greater threat to this nation than is Bin Laden....Obama will kill this country as we have lived free in it like no other before....Go get all your family no matter how distant, far removed or the nature of the feud and get them to go vote McCain-Palin. We must defeat the Obamas, Carters, Clintons and Big Daddy Weaves or they will destroy this nation.

The key I have found, here, CB, is ask for evidence. I have been assured I am either a liar or blind, employing ungodly tactics among other not-so-nice things.

Yet, when I ask for evidence of such, the thread inevitably grows silent, indicative of, one can understandably suppose, a larger problem with evidences from the bloghost, which has been the bread-n-butter of almost all the dissent I log here.

Peter, I don't know if you will come back here, but I do have a small bone to pick with your "show me the evidence" tactic, one you use often.

Here's the problem. I read several blogs and comments. I see something someone reads, and remember it. But it is impossible to find that comment.

I did this once, trying to defend myself from an accusation made by another blogger. I knew I had read such and such, and had written such and such. But I couldn't remember if it was on SBC Today, or Tim's or yours, or here or somewhere else. It took me a long time to track down some of the quotes.

I form impressions and opinions, but when you say, "show me the quotes," I don't have the time to go back and find them. I don't have that much time.

Besides, once I did exactly that. I went and got quotes that an SBC Today blogger had said, definitively proving my point. He chided me for "quote mining."

So, I am not sure I agree that your strategy is as solid as you think.

To those of you who love to compare Wade Burleson with Martin Luther, here’s a reminder: Luther eventually left the priesthood and the Roman Catholic Church.

If, in your eyes, the SBC is so wrong, if it is embracing unbiblical teaching and practices and so wayward in its direction and leadership, there will come a time when you might need to make a similar decision. It would be more healthy than continuing the attacks and discord.

"Luther eventually left the priesthood and the Roman Catholic Church. "

Martin Luther was excommunicated. He did not wish to leave Roman Catholic Church. He was physically threatened (they wanted to kill him) and persecuted. He had to stay in hiding for a long time. At least, that is my understanding.

Now as far as SBC is concerned, when the leadership implements policies they need to know there will be consequences for those actions. In here, it's mostly members suffering because of the decisions taken by a vocal minority and forced on to others.

Remember SBC is supposed to be a cooperative membership and not a top-down dictatorial regime.

Now as far as your "bone", my brother, you conclude: "So, I am not sure I agree that your strategy is as solid as you think."

First, it is not a "strategy" I pursue. But it is a reasonable expectation, Dave, especially when some really like to pour it on thick--

"Peter, [your statement]...is either an outright lie, or worse, extraordinary blindess. Your slyhanded technique... [is] the same unbelievably ungodly tactics in the 1980's."

So let me get this straight, Dave: just because one does not have the time to go and get the specific incident that demonstrates the point he/she alleges--in the case above, that I am either a liar or blind, etc--that is supposed to somehow ease the obligation to make responsible, accurate statements?

Suppose the subject here was baptism and in exchange with you, I said, "Dave, you either lied about Malcolm Yarnell's view of Baptism or you're so blind you couldn't understand it anyway." To accept your conclusion about "time," what recourse exists except to just drop it and move on? Neither of us accepts either of us would do so.

If I am going to make such a radical remark as impugning someone's intelligence at best and truthfulness at worst, I better darn well have the groceries in my kitchen or keep my stew in my own pot.

To make such an irresponsible statement about someone else and have no believable evidence to show that forged that judgment is morally repugnant to me and, in my view, kisses the feet of false witnessing against one's neighbor.

That you would even question such self-evident principle by asserting "your strategy is [not] as solid as you think" because one doesn't "have that much time" to get the demonstrable incidents, connects morally intuitively with nothing in me, nor with any principle in the NT of which I can think.

However, I can think of a heck of a lot of moral injunctions in the NT that should definitively cause one pause before publicly judging another without any tangible proof forthcoming.

Nor does it strengthen your conclusion that my "strategy" is not as solid as I think because someone chided you for "quote mining." I too have been "chided" for such. But I have never chided another nor would I.

I write what I write. If I am ashamed of what I write, I need to stop plastering stuff all over the internet.

Aside from that, there is not one scintilla of wrongness in employing quotes from what people have written. How are valid critiques ever composed apart from quoting another's words?

The moral obligation to which we are bound, however, dictates that the "quote mining"--if that's what one wants to call it--be performed with both care and fairness.

For example, the two quotes Jerry offered to substantiate his view of me as either a liar or an extraordinarily deceived person was not at all wrong or what you call "quote mining." What was remarkable about the quotes is that neither was relevant to what I actually asserted on this thread.

Did Jerry lie about me? I don't know; I hope not. But only he knows for sure. Personally, I'd rather believe he was mistaken and simply read more into the statements than was there for whatever reasons.

The bottom line is this: the evidence is required whether one announces that so and so is a liar or that so and so teaches heresy. Barring such, no one is on moral ground to suggest "I don't have time" to do it or "the evidence will not be accepted if I do."

If one has the time to make such sweeping judgments, one surely has the time to back it up when challenged. The moral alternative is, keep the moral judgments to one's self. It is also the most responsible position.

If you can make a stronger alternative case, Dave, I'd surely love to hear it.

With that, I am...

Peter

**The comment I posted above had a couple of key words missing. That is why I deleted and reposted...

Did you really say the following:"that the reasons people would vote vote for Obama are:

1. They are lost.2. They are backslidden.3. They have a low view of Scripture and are unsound theologically."

Did you also write on a different blog:

"Obama is the most dangerous man in America. He is a greater threat to this nation than is Bin Laden....Obama will kill this country as we have lived free in it like no other before....Go get all your family no matter how distant, far removed or the nature of the feud and get them to go vote McCain-Palin. We must defeat the Obamas, Carters, Clintons and Big Daddy Weaves or they will destroy this nation."

You said, “Now as far as SBC is concerned, when the leadership implements policies they need to know there will be consequences for those actions. In here, it's mostly members suffering because of the decisions taken by a vocal minority and forced on to others.”

I actually agree with you that questioning is not bad. And when it is done properly, it can be a good thing. So, I’ll ask you again, how are members of SBC churches “suffering” because of policies that leadership have enacted? What decisions are being “forced” on them?

The most glaring example is of Sheri Klouda. As I read more of Pastor Wade's blog, Wade mentions several individual names. I am not familiar with all their stories. But it looks like Pastor Wade and other commentators here are familiar with them.

I understand you have asked about member churches. Here too I would refer you to this blog's posts and comments. May be one of the other commentators will be able to give you specific examples. I will be honest enough to say, I do not have first hand knowledge of them. It's only in reading about them in southern baptist blogs.

Of course, I made those statements and many more like them. I stand by them for they are true.I also made this statement last night on Bart Barber's blog after Barack Obama became the President-elect of the United States of America:

"cb scott said...We must now pray that President-elect Obama will seek the face of God as he leads this nation.

God will take care of the souls of His children. He always has and always will.

We must also pray for the soul of our nation.

Bart, I ask you to covenant with me and all of our brothers and sisters living in this nation that we would fulfill our mandate from God in 1 Peter 2:17 and prayerfully honor our president.

IN CHRIST FREE,cb"

I also stand by that statement.

Now, if you do not see how one can make each and every statement I have made with total conviction, you have no grasp of New Testament Christianity, nor the Book from which we receive our mandates for living as sojourners in this world.

In January Barack Obama will be president of this nation. I must pray for him that God would be given a place in his heart and mind as his Master.

I must also challenge you to do the same.

I, of all people will be most happy if he does embrace biblical faith and becomes the leader we desperately need at this time. God's grace is totally sufficient to not only give him eternal life, but to make him a great leader of this nation.

Consider the story of King Josiah from 2 Chronicles 34. When the Word of God was discovered by workers rebuilding the Temple of God and then "discovered" in the heart of the young King it changed his life forever.

Verse 33 of chapter 34 declares "Thus Josiah removed all the abominations from all the country that belonged to the children of Israel, and made all who were present in Israel diligently serve the Lord their God. All his days they did not depart from following the Lord God of their fathers."

May President-elect Barack Obama "discover" the same truth of God's Word and may he become in the present in our nation what Josiah was in his.

I am not a worthy opponent to spar with. Maybe I should learn to defend my statements in the future with firsthand knowledge. But lot of times, we all learn and defend and fight with knowledge that is not always firsthand. I sincerely hope that other commentators might engage you and Peter.